YOUR Religion

[version77]

The fact that approximately 10% of the responders to this poll are
Muslim suggests to me that there is about a 10% chance
someone here will drive an airplane into ET and blow this place up...

 

[ShoeshineBoy]

Quote from acronym:

Actually, when practically everyone must belong to the cult , or else, you will find most people who did anything much would have belonged, because it was indoctrinated from birth.
There was little choice in the matter, so it should be no surprise.

Think about what you just said said! Finally, I meet an honest materialist!

You admit that scientists are human beings and are strongly influenced by the prevailing religious and philosophical climate in their environment.

For the last fifty to a hundred years our universities have been overwhelmingly humanistic and anti-evangelical. Is it any wonder that most of our scientists today are humanistic and anti-evangelical?

Of course they are! They were churned out of the Machine.

It's ironic but our Ivy League schools began as institutions to train Christian ministers but by the turn of the century, the "ship had turned". They became breeding grounds of atheism and skepticism and all peaked at the Darwin Centennial.

This is a little off topic, but I just want to say thx for pointing out the obvious: scientists may be precise and exact in their clinical life, but they are clearly highly influenced by the prevailing thinking of the day when it comes to religious and philosophical views.

 

[ShoeshineBoy]

Quote from JohnnyK:

Thanks Shoeshineboy. It helps me construct a cosmological viewpoint from your perspective. I'm wondering if I should just consider your paradigm fundamentally Catholic though, since there is so much in common.

For example, here is some more green from Green Flash. Am I correct to predict that the Evangelicals pretty much align themselves with the Mother Church on this one too?

Will respond later. Gotta run...

 

[stu]

Quote from ShoeshineBoy:

You’re trying to force me into two extreme positions. I’m right in the middle.

I believe that the Bible is archaeologically reliable because God is behind it all. But I don’t believe that simply because the Bible is historically reliable and has been verified (time and again) by archaeological finds that that categorically proves that God exists and that He inspired the Bible.

So what you are really saying is, as there is actually no reliable archaeology whatsoever that makes the Bible archaeologically reliable, you will just decide there is reliable archaeology , even though there is not.

 

[acronym]

Quote from ShoeshineBoy:

It's ironic but our Ivy League schools began as institutions to train Christian ministers but by the turn of the century, the "ship had turned". They became breeding grounds of atheism and skepticism and all peaked at the Darwin Centennial.
[/u]. [/B]

Um, that not quite what i meant, but that comes back to deism i suppose-what i meant was, thats a bit like saying "A high number of soviet scientists were communists", and now you mention it, its surprising more scientists etc werent christians, given you had to be to get into these schools for the most part, until, as you say, the ship turned.

 

[murray t turtle]

Quote from ShoeshineBoy:

Believe it or not, I'm not trying to be aggravating. I was just pointing out that from the Christian standpoint you've got devils and you've got angels and there's no in between. And that, btw, is substantiated by the fact that (as far as I know) NO channeled message has ever channeled anything remotely traditionally Christian. It is ALWAYS occult/new age/eastern in theology.

Coincidence? I think not...

==============
Good points.

And while wouldn't use the word channeling;
one reason why some dont like the Word of the living God, the principle of a channel would be true, in a good sense of of God speaking thru his word/a person.

Channel is almost always used in a demonic context;
the devil is a counterfeiter,counterfeits a word of Wisdom,
word of knowledge.

So the super natural principle is the same [super plus natural];
but one evil/foolish the other good/wise. Hope this helps

 

[jem]

Quote from acronym:

Jem, try this, galileo tried for heresy.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/historic_figures/galilei_galileo.shtml

If you read the about the situation there was a debate in the chruch over the truth. There were some very strong supporters of Gallileo. His punishment was the result of a political battle.

Besides, Gallieo may have been wrong. The sun is not the center of the universe and it does move. But that is really not the point.

I was just asking for cites to the claims being made.

 

[acronym]

Well, bingo, politics-i thought that was a reasonable cite.
A debate over truth-when none of the participants could possibly be in a position to arbitrate a fair judgement, nor should they have been in a position to judge anything, period.

Aristotle was wrong- but he didnt murder, imprison, torture or punish people for disagreeing. But even there, you have the beginnings of a cult following, which it appears lasted for some time.

 

[stu]

Good post murray. Confirms so well I think, the way in which expressions to do with God are made..

Quote from murray t turtle:

==============
Good points.

And while wouldn't use the word channeling;
one reason why some dont like the Word of the living God, the principle of a channel would be true, in a good sense of of God speaking thru his word/a person.

Channel is almost always used in a demonic context;
the devil is a counterfeiter,counterfeits a word of Wisdom,
word of knowledge.

So the super natural principle is the same [super plus natural];
but one evil/foolish the other good/wise. Hope this helps

...in gibberish

 

[JohnnyK]

Quote from jem:

His punishment was the result of a political battle.

My friend Green Flash says that because the mother Church never officially taught the an Earth-centric universe, it's off the hook.

But I'ld say the mother taught us alot about what it thinks, how it thinks, and what it does to people who don't think like it does. We learned that an Earth-centric universe was an important part of the mothers agenda, without which, it would be a little more challenging for the mother to BE the center of universal power. We were able to look inside...and see how political the thinking was based.

For many of us, that's official teaching...observing what it does, rather than what it says.